Dissertation, Oxford University (2018)

Authors
Annette Zimmermann
Princeton University
Abstract
This is a collection of four papers about the All-Affected Principle (AAP): the view that every person whose morally weighty interests are affected by a democratic decision has the right to participate in that decision. The first paper (“Narrow Possibilism about Democratic Enfranchisement”) examines how we should distribute democratic participation rights: a plausible version of AAP must avoid treating unlike cases alike, which would be procedurally unfair. The solution is to distribute participation rights proportionately to the risk that a person’s interests will be affected. AAP thus implies an account of political equality that requires adherence to the ‘one person—one vote’ model only if interests are indeed equally affected. The second paper (“Economic Participation Rights and the AAP”) argues that AAP supporters have paid insufficient attention to economic participation rights. The exercise of such rights raises unique worries about democratic accountability, which is why their exercise is constrained by a number of duties. The third paper (“What AAP Is, and How (Not) to Fight It”) explores how AAP fares in light of possible objections from desirability and feasibility. Unlike crude versions of AAP, a plausibly restricted version of AAP cannot be dismissed as easily as many AAP sceptics may have thought. My reflections here are useful for AAP supporters and sceptics alike: this paper helps clarify what kind of objection can cast serious doubt on AAP. The fourth paper (“Criminal Disenfranchisement, Political Wrongdoing, and Affected Interests”) asks: is AAP compatible with criminal disenfranchisement? AAP, when endorsed in combination with a plausible theory of punishment, is compatible with disenfranchising a narrow set of criminal wrongdoers only: those guilty of ‘political wrongdoing’, which is wrong primarily because it undermines democratic procedures and institutions for private gain. The upshot is that current blanket policies of criminal disenfranchisement are incompatible with AAP.
Keywords political philosophy  democratic theory  ethics of risk  social philosophy  philosophy of law  legal philosophy  political participation  economic rights  criminal disenfranchisement  justice and democracy  political equality
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,448
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Famine, Affluence, and Morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3):229-243.
Ideal Vs. Non‐Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map.Laura Valentini - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (9):654-664.
Two Concepts of Rules.John Rawls - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (1):3-32.
Ideal and Nonideal Theory.A. John Simmons - 2010 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (1):5-36.
Realism in Political Theory.William A. Galston - 2010 - European Journal of Political Theory 9 (4):385-411.

View all 64 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Economic Participation Rights and the All-Affected Principle.Annette Zimmermann - 2017 - Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric 10 (2):1-21.
Felon Disenfranchisement and Democratic Legitimacy.Matt S. Whitt - 2017 - Social Theory and Practice 43 (2):283-311.
The Political Egalitarian’s Dilemma.Fabienne Peter - 2007 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):373-387.
Towards an African Theory of Democracy.A. K. Fayemi - 2009 - Thought and Practice: A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya 1 (1):101-126.
Political Equality in a Democracy.Yossi Dahan - 1989 - Dissertation, Columbia University
Democracy, Citizenship and the Bits in Between.Sarah Fine - 2014 - In Richard Bellamy & Madeleine Kennedy-Macfoy (eds.), Citizenship. Routledge. pp. 623-640.
What Comes First, Democracy or Human Rights?Saladin Meckled-Garcia - 2014 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (6):681-688.
The Political Philosophy of Needs.Lawrence A. Hamilton - 2003 - Cambridge University Press.
Legal Modes and Democratic Citizens in Republican Theory.Galya Benarieh Ruffer - 2013 - In Andreas Niederberger & Philipp Schink (eds.), Republican Democracy: Liberty, Law and Politics. Edinburgh University Press.
A Modified Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice: “Justice as Fair Rights”.Rodney G. Peffer - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:593-608.
Vita Mundi.Lena Zuckerwise - 2016 - Social Theory and Practice 42 (3):474-500.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-10-06

Total views
10 ( #869,880 of 2,446,186 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #310,555 of 2,446,186 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes